As Alice said in Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland, it gets “curiouser and curiouser.”

        It might be funny if it weren’t so scary.

a “quick fix” was necessary.

“Once popular opinion was seemingly behind the measure, those in power forced it upon those who they deemed ‘needed’ the ‘help,’ regardless of rational minds that objected,” McMillan said. “This was all to be done hastily—much like the stimulus, upon which the very ‘survival’ of civilization depended, one would think, after the intense, coordinated political assault launched on its behalf.”

He said government had “a foot in the door” and then “refused to remove it, claiming that doing so would result in crisis all over again.”

McMillan said some smaller banks were allowed to return their TARP funds but the big banks are being forced to hold onto the taxpayer funds.

“And many politicians are no doubt salivating over the opportunities for increased power that exist through the bailout funds,” he said.

Now, he said Treasury Secretary Tim Guithner is pledging to give government “assistance” to banks, and force a “change in management and the board,” if required.

There may be some rationale for a company that takes government money to be subject to “control” from Washington.

But now the government wants to exercise control over any business it deems in danger of failing, whether it took government money or not.

Banks that agreed to government oversight via TARP “are now finding that money from Washington does indeed come with strings—no, make that a noose—attached,” McMillan said. “This de facto nationalization—the endgame of all the bailouts and fear mongering—will ineluctably result in the biggest destruction of a nation's economy ever seen in such a short period in history.”

 

money the bank said it did not need and did not want.

“The bank was in good shape, no bad debt, no reason for ‘needing’ government money,” Mc-Millan said. “But he [the CEO] was overruled by the Board of Directors, which was swayed by the government’s threat of a public audit, a costly PR negative even though he was confident the bank would come out clean.”

He said the bank, seeing the handwriting on the wall with the forced resignation of GM CEO Rick Wagoner and the threatened government micro-management of all US companies, decided it wanted to give the money back.

“But the Obama Administration is icily refusing to accept the cash, going so far as to threaten the CEO if he continues attempting to repay,” McMillan said.

The TARP and other bailout programs have been sold as “temporary” and the excuse was that the money would be repaid. But now a bank wants to pay it back and the administration won’t let it.

As economist Milton Friedman said, “Nothing is so permanent as a ‘temporary government program.’”

McMillan said the manufactured crisis “was sold to the American people as absolutely devastating” and that

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fortunately, lawmakers authorized the Public Utility Commission to develop a plan for Competitive Renewable Energy Zones. 

If built out as currently planned, CREZ will add another 11,553 wind-generated megawatts to the system – more than double what we have today.

All well and good right?  Yes, except there seems to be a growing sentiment that maybe we are moving too fast on CREZ transmission or maybe wind developers need greater restrictions than any other energy source when it comes to siting regulations.

That’s why representatives of more than 30 wind companies recently converged on the Capitol on “Wind Energy Day” as declared by Governor Perry.

There is ample reason to praise lawmakers for visionary tax, transmission and siting policies that have made Texas the envy of the nation.

But there is also reason for concern, especially if Texas relaxes on building transmission lines or puts up regulatory hurdles to the development of this clean resource.

When you consider the day is coming when we will be able to store wind-generated electricity and, even further down the road, the day is coming when we will run out of fossil fuels, the wise course is to craft energy policy that reflects tomorrow’s energy realities. 

We hope Texas will continue to think forward.

Paul Sadler is the executive director of The Wind Coalition, a wind energy advocacy organization with more than 30 members seeking to grow our wind potential in the South Central United States.  www.windcoalition.org

Energy storage will change the way we generate energy because renewable sources like wind are currently variable.

This simply means wind turbines provide power intermittently based on when the wind blows.  

But while critics claim this is an inherent limitation on wind’s reliability, it really is not. 

Today, wind represents eight percent of our energy capacity but, because of a lack of transmission lines, wind only supplies four percent of our power.

And studies have shown that the grid can receive as much as 20 percent of its electricity from wind with minimal disruption. 

However, the day energy can be stored and released when needed is the day when energy generation will be truly transformed. 

Energy storage will change the way our electric grid is operated, allowing us to reach the total potential of renewable resources and benefit all generation sources by making our grid more reliable.  

Developers of wind energy won’t have to engage any longer in debates about the reliability of their commodity. 

It will instantly be recognized not as just a clean alternative but one of the only abundant resources we have that will never run dry, along with its cousin, solar. 

Today, we are at a critical crossroads. On one hand, Texas has been blessed with both rich wind resources and policy-makers willing to harvest our wind potential. 

As we sit here today, we have almost three times as much developed wind energy capacity as any state. 

Last year we added more wind capacity than

California has over the last 25 years. 

Simply astounding. 

On the other hand, if we don’t add needed transmission capacity, our growth will slow to a crawl because it doesn’t make sense to generate power if you can’t get it to where people need it. 

The current transmission system is nearly tapped out when it comes to wind development. We need new lines.

with wireless phones. 

And with the arrival of the Internet, communications has been revolutionized.

Those of us involved in the energy sector think there is something fundamental that can be learned from all of these technological innovations.

The investments we make in public infrastructure should be based on the technologies of tomorrow and not merely the advances that have been made today. 

In other words, policy-makers must continue to think forward beyond the constraints posed by today’s technology.

When it comes to tax, transmission and regulatory policy related to energy and electricity, it is tempting to think about tomorrow’s electricity grid based on the viability of today’s resources. That would be a costly mistake.

Just as the splitting of the atom changed the complexion of weapons systems overnight, the capability to store electricity will instantly transform how we generate electricity.

Today there are a lot of smart minds seeking to “crack the code” when it comes to the storage of energy. 

They all tell us it is not a question of “if” but “when.”  When it does happen, will we have a power grid that is ready for it or will we spend tens of billions of dollars to catch up to the new reality?  

BY PAUL SADLER

Special to the News Leader

At the turn of the 20th Century, the idea of manned flight was not only a pipe dream but disproven by so-called experts. 

Within a generation, the airplane would transform modern warfare and modern transportation.

Over the course of the last two centuries, we have seen cars replace horses, electricity replace candlelight and landlines replace the telegram, only later to compete